raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e. is it possible to count on my internet like my customers count on me? it is with comcast business. keeping you up and running with 99.9% network reliability. and security that helps outsmart threats to your data. moaire dida twoo? your data, too. there's even round-the- clock customer support. so you can be there for your customers. hey billy, how you doin? with comcast business, reliability isn't just possible. thanks. it's happening. get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to a $1000 prepaid card with a qualifying internet package. don't wait, call and switch today!

this is "gps, the global public square." welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zacaria. today on the program, a major shakeup in europe, since world war ii. as ukraine president zelensky fires his commander in chief and installs a new one. the key question is, will it change the state of battle? i ask "the wall street journal's" chief foreign af affair's correspondent. then, it's been more than four months since the october 7th attack. and 100 hostages are believed to remain in hamas' custody. i will talk to the editor in chief about the sentiment on the ground in israel as the war wages on.

then, the u.s. military killed a militia commander on the streets of baghdad in re retaliation for three troops killed in jordan. i ask an expert about the politics at play. first, here's my take. i've been arguing for a long time that the democratic party needs to recognize that the crisis at the southern border is real, that it is the result of a totally broken asylum system and that it needs to be fixed urgently. i got lots of pushback from people telling me i was wrong and cruel and that i was buying into republican rhetoric. but this week, the biden administration and senate democrats finally acted to fix the system along the lines republicans have been pushing for. only to find republicans have now changed their minds. a new republican argument is,

that there's no need for any change in laws relating to asylum, that president biden can simply use executive authority to solve the problem. this is the view now articulated by donald trump, house speaker mike johnson, texas governor greg abbott, florida governor ron desantis, and elon musk and other figures. this is a complete turnaround for republicans. in 2019, representative steve scalise specifically argued it takes congressional action. you need to change the law. that same year donald trump also said, you have to change the loopholes. you have to change asylum. not anymore. the arch conservative oklahoma senator james lankford, who was the public negotiator of the bill changed it. now, the conversation is, just kidding, we don't need a change in the law. trump was right in 2019. he knows it because he tried to

use executive authority when he was president but it either didn't work or was altered or blocked by courts. he was able to turn away people and invoke 42 during the pandemic. that allows for that action during a public health emergency. biden did allow that authority to lapse. were he to try to invoke it today, courts would rule there is no public health emergency right now. america is a country of laws and the president cannot misuse his authority without being checked. david frum explained last sunday, most people have an image of the problem that comes from the 1990s and 2000s. hoards of immigrants crossing the border and evading law enforcement authorities. that's not what is happening now. people come to the border and, rather than running away from the law, run towards it. many have figured out, if they

apply for asylum, they are legally allowed to enter the country and go through an adjudication process that lasts from five to seven years. during that time, they slip into the country and start working. frum told me, telling the president to enforce the laws misses the point. he is enforcing the laws. the problem is that the laws need to change. it's not just the laws. the reality is that border authority is overwhelmed with five-times as many apprehensions on the southwest border in fiscal year 2023 as there were a year earlier. departing them requires people and funds. i.c.e., the agency that does the deportations is so low on funds, it will cut back on activities within a few weeks. the senate bill was a serious effort to solve many problems. it would have provided funding for large increase in staff. 4,300 additional asylum officers and support staff and thousands

of other new hires in immigration and security. it would have given them much greater authority to make quick determinations about people's status. crucially, it would have shortened the five-year to seven-year adjudication process, to a first hearing within a target of 90 days and a final determination in another 90 days. it would have given the government an authority to declare an emergency, if the number of arrivals rose beyond certain thresholds, allowing it to turn people away, if the numbers rose to an average of 5,000 people a day over a week, that authority would have kicked in automatically. it's not perfect. the basic standard to determine whether someone qualifies for asylum is too low. it's been raised a notch, a senior white house official told me and conceded that the democratic left had insisted raising it more. house republicans could play a useful role by raising it even higher. again, that requires changes to asylum laws.

the most obvious proof that trump realizes that this bill would give the administration powerful tools to address this crisis, is that he is so dead-set that it should not pass. were it to pass, it might well solve large parts of the border problem, which would not serve him politically. he wrote on social media, this bill is a great gift to the democrats. the rest of the west is facing a similar challenge and is grappling with how to adjust immigration and asylum laws. many countries have taken significant steps. in america, one of the major political parties is determined to enflame the crisis rather than douse it. fiddling while the country pupurn burns. hoping it can inherit the ruins. let's get started.burns. hoping it can inherit the ruins. let's get started.

♪ on thursday, ukraine's president zelensky in the most pivotal time for kyiv since the war began. this comes as western ben benefactors worry about a stalemate and look to a negotiated peace. joining me is "the wall street journal" chief corurrent affair correspondent. let me ask you your reaction to the news that zelensky fire d general zalu zzhnyi. he repulsed the original russian

invasion and a popular man, that ranked about as high as zelensky in his popularity. what's going on? >> thank you, fareed. there was tension between zelensky and zaluzhnyi for many months, more than a year. it's true that he played a pivotal role in the first month of the war. he organized the mobile defense that allowed the smaller and weaker ukrainian army to back the russians from kyiv, saving the country. as zelensky said, the new approach requires new blood. people who believe in victory. the actual nature of the disagreements between the two of them has never been clarified. what ukrainian commanders in the field say was that zelensky was pushing to keep fighting for the city of mahmoud last year, when

zaluzhnyi wanted to pull back and save lives. >> is there a debate where people say, let's consolidate what we have and make ourselves impregnable. if we end up with 84% of the ukraine that we had in 1991, that's fine. there are others who say, no, we have to keep fighting until we get everything, including crimea. >> i think there's no division on the strategy. also because russia still wants it all. it's not like russia is happy with the current lines of control. second, the debate is about what to do this year. this year is a difficult year. ukraine has suffered tremendous l losses in the counteroffensive. there's a shortage of ammunition and men, and russia is on offensive, taking advantage of the fact that american funding iffer for ukraine has drided up. this is a year to consolidate to hold off the russians and

prepare for a new push, maybe next year. when the ukrainians get the f-16s. and maybe advances that would allow it to be back to russian superiority numbers. >> isn't it fair to say that the russians are hoping for a trump victory in the election and the russians are hoping that will be a big change in dynamic. >> absolutely. if you watch russian television, that is the strategic hope they have. once trump comes, then the western resolve will falter and ukraine will be left to its own devices. but that would be an incredible collapse. first of all, the european countries had a much more direct stake in ukraine's survival. and ukraine is seeing an increase in european military

and civilian economic assistance. at the same time, ukrainians don't have a choice but to keep fighting. it's hard to see what kind of deal president trump, if he is elected to the white house in november, could propose in ukraine in the ukrainians aren't ready to surrender. >> what do you think explains the delays in weaponry that have been part of the whole story that you tell in your book so well? it seems to me that the united states, when i talk to american officials, they say, look, we're getting them what we need as fast as we can get it to them. they need to be trained to use the supplies that we can get to them. you point out that it's cost ukraine a lot, these delays.

what do you think the story is? why was washington reluctant? >> there's many reasons. ukraine was underestimated. nobody believed it would use weapons efficiently or survive. ukraine was predicted to collapse in a few days by western intelligence and by russian intelligence. the biggest reason is the fear of russia's response, after russia's circled red lines. even though it's nuclear threats have failed to deter american resistance to ukraine, putin has succeeded in throttling that assistance. the self-imposed self-deterrence red lines were a major factor why so many capabilities came to ukraine too late.

things considered to be provo provocative, like western tents, were okay a year later. >> yaroslav, thank you. next on "gps," this week, israel marked four months since the october 7th attack. i'll talk to the editor in chief of the israeli newspaper why he thinks the war is self-destructive for israel, when we come back.

this week, israel marked four months since the october 7th attack. it's been four months of captivity for what are believed to be 400 hostages and four

months of war. my next guest wrote a powerful piece called "israel's self-destruction." aluf benn is the editor in chief for the newspaper "haaretz." what is the state of play right now. you have bibi netanyahu's government to enter rafah. the secretary of state is openly saying he thinks this is a bad idea. president biden is talking about how israel is engaging in indiscriminate bombing and how hard he is trying to get a cease-fire. why does netanyahu think he can defy american pressure openly? >> i think he looks at the american electoral calendar and even more so, he looks inwards

towards his political base. israeli right-wing loves the clash with the american government, especially with the democrats in power. be it bill clinton or barack obama and now joe biden. i don't think any american president in history has been so supportive of israel and gave such strong backing to israel than joe biden. but still, for political expediency, it's good for netanyahu to campaign as if he is standing up against the pressure to build a palestinian state in gaza. or to bring the palestinian authority there. it is good for him politically. and it's good for biden politically, vis-a-vis the situation in israel. >> and do you think it's the coalition that is holding

netanyahu together? what is the state of the israeli government? >> no coalition in israel is ever stable. this coalition has been more stable than others because ied . they joined the covenant without aspirational portfolios or executive jobs, only to be part of the handling of the war. so, netanyahu can play. he has one cabinet with the ministers and a different cabinet with the centrist ministers and his own party. he is playing between both. his main risk is from the far right, ditching the coalition. if they disagree with what they

might see as too far reaching cease-fire, compromise with hamas, they support fighting the war to the end. and they threaten to leave the coalition if netanyahu stops. >> why do you, aluf, describe the foreign affairs as israel's self-de self-destruction? explain what you mean. >> the main argument in this article is that if you want to keep living peacefully and prosper, we need to come to terms with understanding that the palestinians live with us and that we have to share the land with them in some way and to strive for better -- much better co-existence, rather than what netanyahu tried to play gaza against them all. to play the rival part of palestinian society against each other by cooperating to some extent with mahmoud abbas with the palestinian authority in the west bank, while fighting them

diplomatically. and with hamas, that is aimed at destroying israel, netanyahu allowed them -- although they were under siege, allowed qatar to fund the government with support and he bolstered that. by doing that, he is standing up to the international pressure for palestinian statehood. he told his right-wing members of knesset, if we keep hamas in power in gaza, then we can hold the palestinian authority in check and prevent the peace process that we don't like. >> but the view that israel needs to make a deal with the palestinians, is today more of a minority view than it was, right? what you're describing is -- i don't want to call you a voice in the wilderness. but this is not a popular position in israel right now.

>> no. in israel right now, even people or parties who in the past supported a two-state solution, would not say it now. would not say that the palestinian authority as an autonomy, not as a state, should be returned to gaza. there's a strong fear in israel, which you cannot underestimate that any territory given to the palestinians will be the launching pad for the next october 7th, which is the main argument, the worst clalamity i israel's history. it will take many years how to understand what happened. how we failed to respond. how we failed in the critical first hours. how to bring back the israelis to the abandoned villages to the south and the north that they escaped.

that's still imminent, that might happen. >> aluf benn, thank you for helping us. anger in iraq, after the brazen strike in baghdad on a senior militia leader who u.s. officials say was responsible for the attack that killed three american troops in jordan. we'll take a close look at the situation when we return.

i'm daniel lurie and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e. i think he's having a midlife crisis i'm not. you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre--

i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. i know what year it is. this week, a u.s. drone attack struck a car in a residential neighborhood in baghdad, killing a senior leader of the iranian-backed militia. the u.s. said the targeted man was responsible for last month's attack in jordan that killed three american troops. the strike in iraq's capital prompted angry reactions from the country, from top officials to people in the street. and the iraqi military says it is more compelled than ever to terminate the united states' mission in iraq.

it may surprise you to learn that there's 2,500 american troops still stationed in that country. i want to bring in the director of the conflict resolution and track 2 dialogues program at the middle east institute. what is this group? >> they are brigades that were founded in 2003 by a man who was killed by a u.s. drone attack in january 2020. and their objective at the time was to fight the u.s. forces who were present in iraq, from 2003-2011. their agenda is to protect iranian interested in the region. they were involved in quelling the citizen uprising in syria. they were involved in upending citizen protest in iraq in 2019, killing, you know, a lot of iraqi youth protesters.

and since the gaza war in october of last year, they have been upping the ante of the attacks on those forces, claiming they are doing so in support of the palestinians. their objective of expelling u.s. forces from iraq and syria predates the gaza war. >> just so that people understand, this militia also supports the shia political parties in iraq, right? they have -- they have close ties with the iraqi government. >> the iraqi government right now is ruled by a governing coalition, that includes people that are, you know, leaders of some of these militias. hezbollah is one of four big paramilitary groups, shia groups. and one of the militias is in the governing coalition.

it includes political factions. they shared the expelling forces of iraq or prompt withdrawal of forces from iraq. >> to explain the dynamic that you were describing, what this militia is doing is it is attacking american troops almost designed to bait them, to get america to attack its forces, that places the iraqi government in an awkward position because the united states is attacking iraqi soil, it is attacking allies of the government and there will be greater popular calls and calls within iraqi shiite elite circles to say get these americans out. has the u.s. fallen for an iranian trap by responding?

>> exactly. i think what -- you know, what iraq prime minister is trying to do now, he is really trying to keep a balancing act between the hard-liners and the governing coalitions that want the withdraw of u.s. forces. and between the other members of the governing coalition who do not want to see a hasty withdrawal, who do not want to see a disruption with the iraq/u.s. relationship. what he is trying to do and what u.s. is trying to do is get engaged of a military dialogue between iraq security forces and u.s. military, high joint military commission, to start examining how to transition, orderly transition, of the mission of the u.s. forces in iraq. however, if we have more attacks from this militias, if we have more counterattacks from the u.s., that balancing act becomes almost unsustainable. >> the iranian goal is to be

able to say, we dislodged the united states from iraq. u.s. thought it had influence with this major arab country, and now look, that arab country is asking, demanding that american forces leave and the expulsion of american forces will be the symbolic end of america's influence in iraq and the complete takeover of iraq by iranian forces. at least that is the iranian goal. >> i think definitely. that's the iranian goal. but iranians know, if you have a quick withdraw of u.s. forces, there will be a security vacuum. and the parties that are best positioned to occupy the security vacuum and strengthen the footprint, the hold on the country's politics, security, dynamics are going to be pro-iran militias, including hezb hezbollah. that's what we see, major segments of the iraqi public,

sunnis and shias, do not want to see this quick withdraw. they see it as inevitable. they would like to see an orderly transition, orderly withdraw, and a longer timetable. they are hoping that in the interim, the iraqi security forces become more capable, more equipped, the political dynamics on the ground change in order to prevent that scenario of more pro-iran forces strengthening their hold on the country's politics. >> thank you so much. that is a very helpful guide to a complicated situation. thanks again. >> thank you. next on "gps," as inflation comes down, the unemployment numbers look great, the economy looks strong. will all of that help joe biden? we'll ask nate cohn of "the new york times."

the stock market is high, unemployment is low. why do president biden's numbers look so bad. joining me, nate cohn, with "the new york times." the economy is better. inflation is clearly down. is this just a time lag? or why is it that people don't seem to feel that when they are asked that question, do you think the economy is good? >> i think that the biden campaign has to hope it's a time lag. it's a possible time lag. the way the recent stories have come together to point towards a soft landing. it's worth remembering, in october, the stock market was 20% lower than it is today. just four months ago. the federal reserve was not ready to signal that rates were going to come down next year. all of that added up, to a tremendous amount of uncertainty about where the direction of the

economy is going. it's really over the last 24 days or so, those questions have begun to ease. and now, people are looking towards sustained lower levels of inflation, higher stock markets, lower interest rates and so on. given that, they can hope for things to get better from here. if they don't, there's tougher questions from joe biden about what is holding back his ratings. >> over the last three presidencies, obama, trump, and biden, there has been a disconnect between one of the most closely connected couplings in american history. if you go back in polling, economy is doing well, people feel the economy doing well, always translated to high approval ratings for the president. since obama and the recovery from the '08 crisis, that's not true. what is happening? >> it's tough to say, fareed. there's two theorys of the case. one theory, the economy hasn't

been that strong since the end of the financial crisis, that obama's ratings were appropriately low, given the tepid rate of economic growth. and donald trump is the only exception here. in 2019, the economy started to get strong, but by then, donald trump was this uniquely polarizing figure that was probably not going to be especially popular, given his penchant to offend large sections of the electorate. then, joe biden wins the presidency and inflation takes hold. the economy has been bad and there's not as much a disconnect as it looks. theory two, this is about partisan polarization. we no longer live in a country when 60% of americans will have a favorable view of the president like they did when bill clinton was able to ride a sustained economic boom to popularity. joe biden, he may not be popular, but he's not donald trump. the country doesn't hate him. he hasn't offended huge swaths

of the electorate. this is the kind of president, in theory, might be able to ride broad economic prosperity to broad support in the poles. >> do you think there's people in the middle -- for the second theory to work, you have people in the mid tdle that will gravitate towards biden because of economic times. is the country divided at this point? cultural issues, identity issues? people talk about independence. but independence is really -- they just like to call themselves independents? they like to be left-wing or right-wing independents? >> there's more persuadable voters than people give credit for. millions of americans are not part of deeply polarizing politics. they don't vote in most elections. a turnout rate in a midterm election is less than 50%. there's a huge chunk of people that are on the sidelines of these cultural fights that have an opportunity to swing one way

or another. the electorate as a whole is stable. we see a lot of movement under the surface. we've seen white, working class voters swing one way. college-educated voters in the suburbs swing the other. trump makes gains among latino voters and black and young voters. there's a lot of voters up for grabs at this moment, even though the country is as partisan as it is. on paper, the idea to be broadly appealing ought to exist. >> when you look at polls where trump is leading, leading in swing states and things like that, do you view that as -- should democrats feel like this is a five-alarm fire? or you know, romney was leading obama the year before and these things don't necessarily reflect what is going to happen in the voting booth in november? >> still a long way from the election. it's l 's hard to be a true

five-alarm fire. i have to say, on paper, the conditions for joe biden ought to be good here. we talked about the growing economy. we haven't talked much about donald trump that is just as popular as he was four years ago and now faces a litany of criminal indictments. on paper, a president running for this economy against this opponent, augts ought to lead i polls now. if that doesn't change, there will be democrats thinking of this as a five-alarm fire and asking serious questions about the source of joe biden's weakness. i think joe biden's age would rank number one on that list. that's a huge problem for the democrats if true. there's not much that joe biden can do about that concern if that's what is holding him back. and the other possibilities are bleaker, in a sense. the possibility that the country is deeper divided, that no democrat, regardless of what they do and how they handle the office, is going to build a broad coalition in this part season political environment that we've been talking about. that would suggest that donald trump has a chance to win this

election, even though by all accounts, he shouldn't. >> nate cohn, always a pleasure to talk to you. >> great to be here, fareed, thanks. next on "gps," how do american presidents adjust to life after that exalted office? jared cohen will join me to talk about his new book on seven men whose life after the white house was arguably just as remarkable as their ten cures inside of it.

growing up, my parents wanted me to become a doctor or an engineer. those are good careers! but i chose a different path. first, as mayor and then in the legislature. i enshrined abortion rights in our california constitution. in the face of trump, i strengthened hate crime laws and lowered the costs for the middle class. now i'm running to bring the fight to congress.

you were always stubborn. and on that note, i'm evan low, and i approve this message. how do you move on after holding the most powerful office in the world? donald trump of course seems to be shuttling between campaign events and courtrooms these days. what about less examples. william howard taft became the chief justice of the security. herbert hoover had one of the

most influential postpresidencies in history. joining me now is jared cohen, author of the new book "life after power: seven presidents and their search for purpose beyond the white house." jared, welcome. >> thank you, fareed. >> this is a terrific book. i've read the whole thing. and what i love about it is, you're asking the question that applies to everybody. that's what happens after some moment. and i'm wondering, given the size of this problem, is there a common theme of, do all of them at some level get depressed? >> it's the most traumatic transition of the world, going from the president of the united states to back to earth. and i picked seven presidents that followed a different model. the common thread across all of them is each of them exuded something that they were deeply principled about. while they may not have realized it until after they were

president, they doubled down on it. what they ended up doing after the white house was a reflection of something they were disciplined and dagogmatic abou. >> when i think about postpresidencies, the one to the public that seems to have been the most successful in our memory, is jimmy carter. why do you think that one was so successful? >> jimmy carter is the father of the modern postpresidency. jimmy carter wanted to have a never-ending presidency. when he is voted out of office, and he is $1 million in debt from his peanut farm, he creates a postpresidential administration. and 42-plus years into his postpresidency, he's been a partner and a nuisance to his successors on both sides of the aisle. >> the other person you argue really had a successful postpresidency, is john quincy adams. what is striking about carter and adams to me is, they had a deep sense of mission and a

sense of purpose. neither was interested at all in making money after -- you know, that seems to have been a pattern that postpresidencies have. that sense of having something that animates you seems to be very powerful. >> after he served every job in the public sector except the house of representatives, he gets elected as an ex-president to the house because there's no other public sector jobs. he doesn't know what his purpose is there. in his nine terms of a lower station, he finds a higher calling and becomes a leader of what was a fringe abolitionist movement and he mainstreams it. adams dies in 1848. this was a man appointed in his first public sector job for george washington. dies in 1848, serving alongside a freshman congressman named abraham lincoln. >> and lincoln revered him? >> i'm convinced that had lincoln been exposed to john

quincy adams in the house, i'm convinced it would have delayed that ignited his political career and made him a champion of the abolitionist cause. >> one i find fascinating is william howard taft. this is a guy that never wanted to be president. the postpresident job, the chief justice, is the one he wanted. >> william howard taft is a great example who had a dream job and they couldn't take it because the circumstances weren't right, the timing wasn't right. maybe they had an issue with their family. all william howard taft ever wanted was to serve on the supreme court. his brothers and his friend and his mentor, and his wife wanted him to be president. he turns down the supreme court three times. as president of the united states, he appoints a record six justices including a chief justice, in a single term. and there's a joke, you know, that william howard taft's son gets asked the question, is he going to be president or serve on the supreme court? and he says ma wants him to be

president. he is persistent. it shows that a dream deferred is a dream achieved. and his last decade of life is his happiest when he becomes chief justice of the supreme court. and at tend of his life, he says i hardly remember being president. >> jared cohen, a fun book. it makes mere mortals think about what happens when the lights go off and the crowd stops cheering. thank you for joining. he. >> thank you, fareed. i have something to share. my new book "age of revolutions, progress and backlash from 1600 to the present" will be published on march 26th. i'm proud of this book. it's taken me almost ten years to complete. i lay out the revolutions in technology and politics and identity that are shaping the world today. and how revolutions throughout

history shed light on our present moment. it's a personal book about the changes we're living through. full of great stories and lighter moments that i think you will find very accessible. you can preorder a copy now in hard cover, e-book or audio book ready me. there's links on my website. i'll be posting on social media with updates on book tour events. please order now, and tune in on sunday, march 24th, when i'll have a lot more to say about my book in a special segment. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i'll see you next week.